FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 31 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN WAYNE WARDEN, Jr., No. 13-15989
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01461-DGC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NAYELIE BARRIGAN, CRN, Certified
Registered Nurse at ADOC Yuma,
Cocopah Medical Unit; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Former Arizona state prisoner John Wayne Warden, Jr., appeals pro se from
the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Szajer v. City of Los Angeles, 632 F.3d 607,
610 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Warden
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent by denying or delaying post-operative treatment for his left
eye, or by interfering with his ability to receive post-operative treatment. See
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 2004) (prison officials act
with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to
inmate health; a prisoner’s difference of opinion concerning the course of
treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d
732, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2002) (delay of medical treatment does not constitute
deliberate indifference unless delay led to further injury).
We reject Warden’s contention that the district court abused its discretion in
considering defendants’ evidence.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-15989